tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post3826980532186804528..comments2024-03-26T09:38:39.888+00:00Comments on Borthlas: Much ado about very littleJohn Dixonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-16446730611456549712012-07-19T06:52:04.131+01:002012-07-19T06:52:04.131+01:00Anon 1,
I'll come back to the question of ...Anon 1,<br /><br />I'll come back to the question of 'holding the government to account' and what alternatives there are in a fresh post; it deserves a fuller response than a quick comment here.<br /><br />On the question of whether the report is or is not 'independent', which was the casus belli for the no confidence motion, I'm simply not convinced that the smoking e-mails proved anything at all.<br /><br />Anon 2,<br /><br />I said that all governments do it, I didn't say that all governments do it <i>all the time</i>, only <i>regularly</i>. Identifying a single instance of one government not doing it doesn't disprove the general.John Dixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-44676492740439631842012-07-18T16:53:00.420+01:002012-07-18T16:53:00.420+01:00"what all known governments in all known coun..."what all known governments in all known countries have done on a regular basis – try to influence the conclusions of an external report to justify their own actions"<br /><br />I don't agree with at comment, John. When Elin Jones commissioned scientific reports on the badger cull issue, she did not seek to influence the 'reports', despite various protagonists having pre-disposed views. Scientists were not cajoled or manipulated and the resulting recommendations did not necessarily conclude what was most convenient for the politicians. In fact, the opposite was the case. Such was the lack of political meddling, the scientific reports were self standing and independent, and seen to be so. It took over a year of procrastination for the new administration to find a way to 'reverse the science', with dose of fudge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-8056855404232150602012-07-18T15:35:55.813+01:002012-07-18T15:35:55.813+01:00I agree that it would be better to dicuss the prin...I agree that it would be better to dicuss the principles of the report, however I am disapointed that you are so dismissive of this No Confidence Vote.<br /><br />What other form of censure have they got? How else can they hold the Government to account and ensure that they cannot continue to mislead the electorate?<br /><br />If the opposition parties were not to go ahead with the vote of no confidence, then the minister would justify centralisation by claiminig that it was an independent report.<br /><br />They can't be allowed to mislead (lie) like this and think that they can get away with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-17382084682489405892012-07-18T10:47:31.647+01:002012-07-18T10:47:31.647+01:00The question for me is how credible is the reports...The question for me is how credible is the reports author<br />if we are pinning reform on what he says he is the one who should be in the spotlight<br />The minister is an irrelevance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com